Re: SELinux to GPL or not to GPL

From: forrest whitcher (fwat_private)
Date: Fri Jun 07 2002 - 04:07:10 PDT

  • Next message: Haigh, Tom: "Regarding the Type Enforcement Licensing Discussion"

    On Thu, 06 Jun 2002 16:46:19 -0700 (unchecked - local sync NTPstrat4)
    Crispin Cowan <crispinat_private> did inscribe thusly:
    
    > This is misinformation. What JMJones says applies to TRADEMARK, not 
    > patents. Patent holder's rights endure, regardless of prior actions. See 
    > the UNISYS/GIF patent fiasco.
    
    I have to differ on this.
    
    I've worked for 20 years in medical devices, in areas where virtually no
    device can be developed without consideration of your own and competitors's
    patents.
    
    Our patent attorneys were very clear on the effects of not persuing 
    violations, you can effectively lose much of the value of your patent
    not doing so.
    
    This does not imply that the patent will become invalid, rather that
    your ability to obtain a judgement in court will be hampered if you 
    fail to inform / take action wrt violators.
    
    Effectively a competitor may be able to practice your patent *until*
    you inform them. probably without financial penalty. (That said, if
    a court later finds that a violator of a patent undertook the violation
    knowingly you're looking at treble-damages)
    
    forrest
    _______________________________________________
    linux-security-module mailing list
    linux-security-moduleat_private
    http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jun 07 2002 - 04:08:37 PDT